Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Supreme Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT465TriDel

1. The Respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of various goods falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985.During 1993-94 they filed a classification list seeking classification of printed film under CET sub-heading 4901.90 attracting nil rate of duty stating that they are getting duty paid polyethylene film falling under CET sub-heading 3920.31 and that there is no duty on printing of polyethylene duty paid film. This classification was provisionally approved on 4th May, 1994 classifying polyethylene film under CET sub-heading 3920.31. A show cause notice was issued on 21-7-1995 on the basis of earlier adjudication order, proposing classification of printed film under CET sub-heading 3920.39 on the ground that the process of printing plain plastic film amounts to manufacture. After the issue of the notice proposing change in classification, 5 more show cause notices were issued raising demands of total amount of Rs. 3,27,54,475/- during the period from Janua...

South India Television (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC610

1. M/s. South Indian Televisions (P) Ltd. have filed an application stating that a mistake has crept in the order of the Tribunal. Arguing the application, Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Ld. Consultant submits that the authorities below observed that 2971 pcs. of T.D. Ms (two in one) were found in excess and the redemption fine for these 2971 pcs. was Rs. 2 Lakhs. He submits that the Tribunal accepted that the excess after allowing clearance during the period was of the order of 1403 pcs. He submits that the quantity of excess 'two in ones' was thus reduced to half but the redemption fine was allowed as Rs. 2 lakhs. He submits that thus there was a mistake in the order. He cites a number of decisions of this Tribunal in support of his contention that the allegation was that non-accountal and for non-accountal of the goods penalty and the redemption fine could not be so harsh. He submitted that in view of the Tribunal decisions in the case of National Winders v. CCE, Allahabad , in the case ...

Dapel Investments Ltd. and ors. Vs. Asstt. Cit Central Circle, New Del ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)431; 2000CriLJ3629; 85(2000)DLT505; 2000(54)DRJ462; [2000]244ITR95(Delhi)

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short the 'Code') is filed by the petitioners challenging the legality and validity of order dated 25.9.1998 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) dismissing their application under Section 245(2) of the Code and declining to discharge them.2. Petitioner No.1, a company, and petitioners No.2 to 4 its Directors are respondents/accused No.1 to 4 in the complaint filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for proceeding against them for offences punishable under Sections 276C(1) /277 read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') in respect of return of the assessment year 1986- 87.3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner had submitted its income tax return for the accounting year 1.7.1984 to 30.6.1985, i.e., assessment year 1986-87 showing a loss of Rs.2,167/-. The Petitioner inter alias had claimed ...

Dapel Investment Ltd. and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Del)428

ORDERJ.B. Goel, JThis criminal revision petition under sections 397/401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') is filed by the petitioners challenging the legality and validity of order dated 25-9-1998, passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) dismissing their application under section 245(2) of the Code and declining to discharge them.Petitioner No. 1, a company, and petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 its directors are respondents/accused No. 1 to 4 in the complaint filed by the Assistant Commissioner for proceeding against, them for offences punishable under sections 276C(I)/277 read with section 27813 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of return of the assessment year 1986-87.2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner had submitted its income-tax return to, the accounting year 1-7- 1984, to 30-6-1985, i.e. Assessment Year 1986-87 showing a loss of Rs. 2,167. The petitioner inter alia, ha...

Cce Vs. Sheela Foams (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC479

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is whether the goods in question were covered by the Central Excise Tariff sub-heading No. 3921.11 or were classifiable under Heading No.94.04 of the said tariff. The respondents, M/s. Sheela Foams (Pvt.) Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of plastic and articles thereof covered under Chapter 39 as well as articles classifiable under Chapter 94 of the Central Excise Tariff which among other articles covered mattresses. In the show cause notice dated 3.8.93, it was proposed that the Polyurethane (PU) foam sheets pasted with the industrial tape on the edges should be classified under Chapter 94 instead of Chapter 39.It was mentioned that PU foam sheets of thickness 75 mm or more after being cut to size were further worked upon and a self-adhesive industrial tape was used on their edges. It was alleged that as a result of such processing the goods went beyond the purview of Subheading No. 3921.11 as the same did no...

Neelam Satija and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct (Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)320

ORDERCRL. W. No. 4/20001. This is a joint petition by the husband and wife as well as the complainant the author of FIR seeking quashing of FIR and the proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi which was registered under Section 498-A/34 IPC against the petitioner No. 2, the husband and petitioner No. 3, the brother-in-law, petitioner No. 4, the father-in-law and petitioner No. 5, the mother-in-law of petitioner No.1. The said case was registered as FIR No.306/94 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Model Town. The report was lodged by the father of petitioner No.1 Shri Raj Kumar Gambhir alleging therein that his son-in-law petitioner No. 2 Shri Bharat Bhushan Satija had been ill-treating his daughter Smt. Neelam Satija, petitioner No.1 on account of the demand for dowry. 2. During the pendecy of these proceedings before the Metropolitan agistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, at the intervention of the relations, a compromise was arrived at pursuance to whic...

Essel Shyam Communication Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)48; 86(2000)DLT117; 2000(54)DRJ431

ORDERJ.B. Goel. J.1. This application (A.A. 181/99) under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') seeks the appointment of an arbitrator under arbitration agreement (clause 15 of the agreement).2. Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of its policy to license private parties for providing 'Value Added Service', a license Agreement dated 28.3.1995 to establish, maintain and operate Closed Users Group Domestic 64 KBPS Data Network via Insat Satellite System using V-SAT (hereinafter called the service) throughout India under the Indian Telegraph Act was entered into between the President of India and M/s. Rama Associates Limited (for short 'Rama') on the terms and conditions stipulated in the Agreement. This license was on non-exclusive basis for a period of 10 years subject to being terminated earlier. The Agreement contemplated inter alias (a) Clearance for Hub Station site from Standing Advisory Committee on Radio Frequency Allocations (SACFA), M...

Structural Engineers Associates Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)636

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.The order of the Joint Registrar dated 2.12.99 reads as follows:-'Notice of filing of award is reported to have been served upon the respondent Union of India on 28th September, 1999. Objections are not on record. Subject to registry confirming that objections have not been filed, the award be placed before the Hon'ble Court on 6.1.2000 for consideration. The claimant does not wish to file objections. Vakalatnama on behalf of the claimant be filed within a week.'2. The matter has been thereafter placed before the Court today. Pursuant to the above order no objections are on record on behalf of the respondent inspire of the service having been effected on 28.9.99.3. Accordingly in accordance with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the award dated 7.7.1999 is made a rule of the Court and decree in terms thereof be drawn. If the amount due under the award is paid within 3 months from today, the award shall not carry any future interest. However, if the payment is...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. M/S. Sagoon Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant/MTNL under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 19th May, 1999, passed by District Forum-V, in Complaint Case No. 523/1998 entitled M/s. Sagoon Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are, that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, in the District Forum averring that telephone No. 636032 was installed at 42-Friends Colony, New Delhi, and the respondent vide application dated 7.1.1994 had applied for the shifting of the abovesaid telephone to Flat No. 105, Pocket-A1, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-85, for the use of its Legal Adviser. It was stated by the respondent in the complaint that the concerned functionary of the appellant had issued an O.B. for the shifting of the abovesaid telephone on 5.4.1994 but despite issue of...

Popular Rubber Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT65TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Popular Rubber Industries is whether the Micro Cellular Rubber Sheets, manufactured by them is classifiable under Sub-heading 4008.11 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Sub-heading 3921.19 as ordered by the Commissioner, under the impugned order dated 30-4-1998.2. Briefly stated the facts are that Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the Appellants on 27-8-1996 and noticed that they were manufacturing and clearing Micro Cellular Rubber Sheets with Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (MCEVA) without payment of duty. They first detained the stock of finished goods valued at Rs. 1,40,760 on the day of visit and later on seized the same on 26-2-1997. The Commissioner, under the impugned order has classified the product under Sub-heading 3921.19 of the Tariff, directed the Assistant Commissioner to determine the value of the impugned product and work out duty payable after allowing the benefi...